OCR Text |
Show 636 SURGEON F. DAY ON INDIAN FISHES. [Nov. 7, which was subsequently transferred to the British Museum. Neither of Sykes's typical specimens, however, find a place in the * Catalogue of Fishes in the British Museum,' in which the latter is considered a Pseudeutropius, and the former a Eu tropins, although Sykes placed them in one genus. Having been courteously permitted by Dr. Giinther, in 1870, to examine Pseudeutropius longimanus, Gunther (stated in the Catalogue to be " a. Skin, 6 inches long : not in good state. India. From the collection of the Zoological Society"), I was surprised to find it was one of Sykes's specimens, a fact overlooked when the Catalogue was compiled. Attached to it was the following label : - " 940. Zool. Soc," and Hypophthalmus goongwaree (13-6-/57), evidently a transposition of labels from the H. taakree. Before I had seen this skin, I had identified Sykes's fish with Dr. Giinther's, and published this fact in the Proc. Zool. Soc. 1869, p. 617. I question whether the genus Eutropius has any representative in India. Hamilton Buchanan's Pimelodus murius, considered by Dr. Gunther a doubtful Eutropius, is, I am convinced, identical with Pseudeutropius megalops, Giinther. Thus the existence of the genus Eutropius in Hindostan rests upon two specimens, 3 inches long, in the British Museum, labelled " India," a locality having a wide range in the opinion of some zoologists. In remarking that I do not adopt his genus Tylognathus in my papers in the Society's * Proceedings,' Dr. Gunther observes I do not explain how I am able to maintain Labeo as distinct from Barbus without this intermediate division. Definitions will be found pretty accurately given in the ' Catalogue of Fishes in the British Museum,' wherein a wide difference, amongst others, is shown between the mouths of Labeo and Barbus, whilst Tylognathus has its "mouth essentially formed as stated in Labeo" (p. 02). Respecting m y identification of Crossochilus rostratus, Giinther, with Cyprinus lata, Hamilton Buchanan, the following occurs at p. 135:-"[Mr. Day is evidently again too hasty in this identification. First, Hamilton Buchanan's fish has more than nine branched dorsal rays (a character the value of which Mr. Day will by-and-by learn to appreciate), his description and M S . drawing agreeing in this respect. Secondly, without attempting to say what Mr. Day's fish may be, it cannot be Crossochilus rostratus, as the latter has a pair of upper barbels only, but no maxillary barbels (provided Mr. Day knows how to distinguish between these two kinds of barbels).]" Leaving unnoticed personalities, as irrelevant to scientific discussions, wherein facts are the subjects in question, I pass on to the Recorder's statements, into which, I think, some error has found entrance, as neither Buchanan's description nor figure coincides with the text of the 'Record.' Hamilton Buchanan, at p. 283, observes of the C. bata, " with twelve rays in the fin of the back. * * * The first ray of the dorsal fin is short, and closely united with the second, which, like it, is undivided." Deducting two unbranched rays from the total twelve, we have ten branched ones remaining. |